On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: >>>> I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: >>>>> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. >>>> This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit >>>> a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. >>> >>> Using what method? >> >> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a >> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the >> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to >> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule >> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who >> have 100 barrels.) >> >> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently >> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players >> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short >> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise >> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" >> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most >> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain >> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those >> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that >> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits >> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an >> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive >> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other >> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). >> >> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game >> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it >> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but >> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and >> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The >> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; >> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it >> succeeded! >> >> -- >> ais523 > > Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? > Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based > Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically > the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, > R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid > out by the rules. > > In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the > game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. > E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would > *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I > think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes > precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure.
Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.")
